Episode 103
Michele Gelfand | Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World
Episode 103
Michele Gelfand
Michele Gelfand | Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World
summary
In this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with cultural psychologist Michele Gelfand, who argues in her latest book, Rule Makers, Rule Breakers, that the world’s cultures can be classified into two categories by virtue of their norms. She offers a lucid explanation of how and why cultures become tight or loose, outlining their different societal attitudes. This episode is full of eye-opening insights for development professionals, policymakers and those working in international business.
According to Gelfand, tight cultures have a large number of social norms that enforce order and conformity and tend to evolve in nations that face many natural and human-made threats. Loose cultures, on the other hand, have more lenient norms and tolerate a wider array of behaviors. They generally face fewer chronic threats – but may tighten up temporarily in the event of an acute threat. Furthermore, says Michele, tight and loose cultures each have advantages and disadvantages and it’s possible to modify a nation’s norms in order to address protracted social problems. This is also true in the private sector. In a particularly relevant part of the conversation, Michele describes how businesses also develop tight or loose cultures and how a cultural mismatch can doom a merger or undermine cooperation among a corporation’s divisions. The example she provides is that of Chrysler and Mercedes Benz, but Demetri also raises the example of AOL-Time Warner, perhaps the most prominent failed marriage of the late 90’s stock market boom.
“Tight” cultures, like Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Germany, embrace rigid norms and mete out harsh punishments for those who deviate. “Loose” cultures, including New Zealand, the United States, and Brazil, are more tolerant of a wide assortment of behaviors. According to Dr. Gelfand, when countries, families, companies, and US states all act in accordance with their divergent conceptions of “normal,” misunderstandings and conflict often arise that help to explain many of the phenomena we encounter in daily life, business, and politics.
The overtime to this week’s episode includes a conversation about changing cultural norms in the workplace, as well as how the norms in some western countries began to change after terrorist attacks.
This overtime segment, as well as the transcript and rundown to the full episode, are available to audiophile, autodidact, and super nerd subscribers through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers also gain access to our overtime feed, which can be easily be added to your favorite podcast application.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Subscribe & Support the Podcast at http://patreon.com/hiddenforces
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
Publication Date: 10/07/2019
bio
Michele Gelfand is a cultural psychologist, best known for being an expert on tightness–looseness theory, which explains variations in the strength of social norms and punishments across human groups. She is currently a Distinguished University Professor in Psychology and the RH Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, College Park. Gelfand uses field, experimental, computational and neuroscience methods to understand the evolution of culture and its multilevel consequences for human groups. She is the author of Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire the World (Scribner, 2018), co-editor of Values, Political Action, and Change in the Middle East and the Arab Spring (Oxford University Press, 2017), The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations (Taylor & Francis, 2013), and The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture (Stanford University Press, 2004), and is the founding co-editor of the Advances in Culture and Psychology Annual Series and the Frontiers of Culture and Psychology series (Oxford University Press). Gelfand studied at Colgate University, where she graduated with a B.A. in psychology in 1989. She graduated from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 1996 with a PhD in social psychology and organizational psychology.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. A primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho; Non igitur potestis voluptate omnia dirigentes aut tueri aut retinere virtutem. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate dominante. Quo studio Aristophanem putamus aetatem in litteris duxisse?
Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Idque testamento cavebit is, qui nobis quasi oraculum ediderit nihil post mortem ad nos pertinere? Sed fac ista esse non inportuna; Scisse enim te quis coarguere possit? Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Stoici scilicet.
Quae ista amicitia est? At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis. Quod si ita est, sequitur id ipsum, quod te velle video, omnes semper beatos esse sapientes. Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Immo vero, inquit, ad beatissime vivendum parum est, ad beate vero satis. Quid ergo attinet dicere: Nihil haberem, quod reprehenderem, si finitas cupiditates haberent? Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum.
Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum? Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Et summatim quidem haec erant de corpore animoque dicenda, quibus quasi informatum est quid hominis natura postulet. Beatus sibi videtur esse moriens. Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Expressa vero in iis aetatibus, quae iam confirmatae sunt.
Illud quaero, quid ei, qui in voluptate summum bonum ponat, consentaneum sit dicere. Nunc dicam de voluptate, nihil scilicet novi, ea tamen, quae te ipsum probaturum esse confidam. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sit ista in Graecorum levitate perversitas, qui maledictis insectantur eos, a quibus de veritate dissentiunt. Quid, quod res alia tota est? Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Pauca mutat vel plura sane; Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur.
Igitur ne dolorem quidem. Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas? Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Quibus ego vehementer assentior. In his igitur partibus duabus nihil erat, quod Zeno commutare gestiret.
Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? Suo genere perveniant ad extremum; Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse. Sed utrum hortandus es nobis, Luci, inquit, an etiam tua sponte propensus es?
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri sumus. Sic exclusis sententiis reliquorum cum praeterea nulla esse possit, haec antiquorum valeat necesse est. Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Nam quid possumus facere melius? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret?
Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam, quae est moderatio cupiditatum rationi oboediens. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Quid enim mihi potest esse optatius quam cum Catone, omnium virtutum auctore, de virtutibus disputare? Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri sumus. Cum audissem Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, cum M. Etsi ea quidem, quae adhuc dixisti, quamvis ad aetatem recte isto modo dicerentur. Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus.
Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Effluit igitur voluptas corporis et prima quaeque avolat saepiusque relinquit causam paenitendi quam recordandi. Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Tanti autem aderant vesicae et torminum morbi, ut nihil ad eorum magnitudinem posset accedere.
At, si voluptas esset bonum, desideraret. Verum hoc loco sumo verbis his eandem certe vim voluptatis Epicurum nosse quam ceteros. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Quicquid enim a sapientia proficiscitur, id continuo debet expletum esse omnibus suis partibus; Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Audeo dicere, inquit.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Si longus, levis dictata sunt. Quid ergo? Frater et T. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Fortasse id optimum, sed ubi illud: Plus semper voluptatis? Easdemne res? Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum. Cum sciret confestim esse moriendum eamque mortem ardentiore studio peteret, quam Epicurus voluptatem petendam putat.
Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Unum est sine dolore esse, alterum cum voluptate. Certe, nisi voluptatem tanti aestimaretis. Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Is ita vivebat, ut nulla tam exquisita posset inveniri voluptas, qua non abundaret. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior;
Tu autem inter haec tantam multitudinem hominum interiectam non vides nec laetantium nec dolentium? De illis, cum volemus. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Amicitiam autem adhibendam esse censent, quia sit ex eo genere, quae prosunt. Quibusnam praeteritis? Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia. Tu quidem reddes; Eodem modo is enim tibi nemo dabit, quod, expetendum sit, id esse laudabile. Omnis enim est natura diligens sui.